BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12/02/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.PD(MD)No.2542 of 2003 and C.M.P.(MD)No.19131 of 2003 Boovaragan ... Petitioner/8th Respondent Vs 1.Thangavel ... First Respondent/Second Plaintiff 2.Malayammal 3.Ondi Muthu 4.Raman 5.Kathan 6.Bhagyam 7.Minor Tamilselvi (Minor R7 rep. through her mother R6) ... 2 to 7 Respondents/ 1 and 3 to 7 defendants Prayer Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow this Revision Petition and set aside the order dated 20.10.2003 passed in I.A.No.944 of 2003 in O.S.No.338 of 1990, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Musiri. !For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Balasubramanian (No appearance) ^For R1 ... Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar for Mr.K.Prabhakar For RR2 and 3 ... Mr.Ramasubramanian (No appearance) For R4 ... Mr.R.Murugappan (No appearance) :ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is focussed as against the fair and decreetal
order dated 20.10.2003 passed in I.A.No.944 of 2003 in O.S.No.514 of 2000 on the
file of the learned District Munsif, Musiri.
2. Despite printing the matter for hearing on merits, the learned counsel
for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 are
called absent. Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar representing the learned counsel for the first
respondent is present and as against others the matter was dismissed as no steps
have been taken. Since, this is a Civil Revision Petition, I proceed to decide
on merits.
3. The Civil Revision Petition is focussed as against the fair and
decreetal order dated 20.10.2003 passed in I.A.No.944 of 2003 in O.S.No.514 of
2000 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Musiri, enabling the plaintiff
to take the assistance of a finger print expert for comparing the impugned thumb
impression in the will dated 15.09.1990 with that of the admitted thumb
impressions of the deceased in other documents. After hearing both sides, the
lower Court no doubt in a cryptic order allowed the prayer of the first
respondent/plaintiff to take the assistance of the finger print expert in that
regard.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the present
Civil Revision Petition has been filed on the following main grounds among
others:
The learned District Munsif, Musiri failed to note that it would not be
open for the first respondent/ plaintiff to prove the will by comparing the
thumb impression in the documents, which have not been accepted by the
petitioner. The learned District Munsif, Musiri failed to understand that the
documents cannot be sent for comparison. Accordingly, he prayed for setting
aside the order of the lower Court.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any infirmity in
the order passed by the lower Court?
6.On point:
The learned counsel for the first respondent/ plaintiff by drawing the
attention of this Court to the typed set of papers would develop his arguments
to the effect that even though the lower Court’s order is cryptic, there are
enough materials on record to demonstrate that necessarily finger print expert’s
assistance should be taken to verify the genuineness of the thumb impression as
found in the alleged will dated 15.09.1990 executed by one Maruthayee. In fact,
the first respondent/plaintiff wanted the impugned thumb impression in the will
to be compared with the following documents:
(i) Settlement deed dated 19.03.1987 executed by the said Maruthayee Ammal
in favour of Poovaragan and Thangavelu;
(ii) Settlement deed dated 19.05.1999 executed by Maruthayee Ammal in
favour of Minor Pirabu; and
(iii) Passport of Maruthayee.
7. I am of the considered opinion that the documents which have been
chosen as the sample documents are authentic documents. As such all the three
documents chosen by the first respondent/ plaintiff for comparison are ex facie
and prima facie appear to be authentic, subject to the final decision of the
lower Court. The normal rule is that ante litem motam document should be chosen
for comparison.
Here there are such documents available and accordingly I could see no infirmity
in the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Musiri. Hence, there is no
merit in this Civil Revision Petition and accordingly it is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P is also dismissed.
smn
To
The District Munsif,
Musiri.